Rogue Scientist Confirms Pakistan’s Involvement in Iranian Nuclear Program

Rogue Scientist Confirms Pakistan’s Involvement in Iranian Nuclear Program

Reuters/Mian Kursheed

The world’s most notorious proliferator of nuclear weapons technology recently admitted that he, together with top Pakistani officials, assisted Iran in its effort to develop nuclear weapons.

In an interview broadcast on Pakistani television August 31, the father of Pakistan’s nuclear program, A.Q. Khan, also told viewers that if Iran succeeds in “acquiring nuclear technology, we will be a strong bloc in the region to counter international pressure. Iran’s nuclear capability will neutralize Israel’s power.”

In the past, Khan has claimed religious and nationalist justifications for his proliferation of nuclear weapons technology and expertise. According to several experts, the Washington Times reported Wednesday, Khan’s “latest statement was an unusually direct claim of broad, official Pakistani support for an Iranian nuclear weapon.” During the interview (translated here), Khan describes how he and other Pakistani military officials facilitated deals between Iran and Pakistan’s own suppliers of materials and equipment needed to create nuclear weapons.

Khan’s rather explicit remarks condemn the statements of numerous Pakistani government officials over the years—including former President Pervez Musharraf—who have claimed that Khan operated alone as a rogue proliferator of nuclear technology and expertise, and who have denied ever providing support for either Iran or North Korea’s nuclear programs.

This latest revelation provides another sobering glimpse into the underground world of nuclear proliferation. If Khan is right and the Pakistani government has been complicit in assisting Iran in developing nuclear weapons, the connection between Tehran and Islamabad on the issue of nuclear weapons runs much deeper than what most people have previously thought.

It also raises some important questions. Does Pakistan continue to provide support to Iran’s nuclear weapons program? More importantly, how deep does that support run? Is it possible that Iran could acquire a nuclear weapon from Pakistan?

The possibility of some sort of nuclear axis between Iran and Pakistan is sobering, and one that, as Khan’s recent remarks show, and as Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry has previously explained, is not nearly as unlikely as many have thought.

Defending Dictators

Defending Dictators

Getty Images

U.S. response to Honduras crisis is beyond shameful.

When the Honduras Supreme Court booted its thug-in-chief from office in June, after he illegally attempted to trample all over the nation’s constitution, President Obama immediately rose in defense of the would-be dictator. He called upon all political actors in Honduras to “respect democratic norms” and to uphold the “rule of law.”

Yet, as a simple review of the facts reveals, it was former President Manual Zelaya’s utter contempt for democracy and the rule of law that landed him in exile in the first place.

Before 1981, Honduras had a long history of living under military rule, which is why the fledgling democracy drew up a constitution in 1982 that expressly forbids a president to rule for more than one four-year term. Of the 375 articles in the Honduran Constitution, only eightcannot be amended by a two-thirds majority vote in congress. One of those constitutional untouchables is presidential term limits. In fact, Article 239 says that for a president to even suggest an amendment intended to extend his rule is grounds for his immediate removal from office.

Then-President Zelaya first suggested ditching the Honduran Constitution last November, when he proposed that an additional ballot box be added to polling booths across the country. He said he wanted voters to determine whether or not a government body should be established to write a new constitution.

When that proposal failed to get off the ground, Zelaya opted for scaremongering and intimidation—the same tactics his radical leftist ally Hugo Chávez employed to grab permanent control of Venezuela’s government. In March, Zelaya issued a presidential order setting a June 28 deadline for a national referendum on constitutional reforms. The move set the stage for a showdown between the power-hungry Zelaya and the defenders of democracy and the Honduran Constitution, which included the congressional body, the attorney general, the Supreme Court, the nation’s military and a majority of its populace.

Egged on by the anti-American, Chavez-led alba alliance—a Latin American trade bloc made up of several members who have skillfully rigged elections to avoid losing power in their home nations—Zelaya moved ahead with the referendum, even daring his own people to stop him. No law enforcement official in Honduras would ever arrest me, he declared on May 10.

The next day, Honduran Attorney General Luis Rubi obtained a court order which declared the referendum proposal as illegal. One week later, Zelaya’s goons surrounded the attorney general’s offices, wearing masks and brandishing machetes, and demanded the referendum move forward. “We have come to defend this country’s second founding,” their leader said, referring to the referendum. “If we are denied it, we will resort to national insurrection.”

The ugly episode provided Hondurans with a chilling preview of exactly how Manuel Zelaya intended to secure the “votes” he needed to rewrite the constitution and establish authoritarian rule in Honduras.

So, after Zelaya ignored the court order and defiantly pressed ahead with the referendum, the attorney general, backed by the constitution and an overwhelming majority in the Honduran congress, obtained a warrant for Zelaya’s arrest. On June 28, Honduran soldiers, acting on orders from the Supreme Court, arrested Zelaya and exiled him to Costa Rica.

President Obama’s initial response to the action taken against Zelaya was to incorrectly identify it as a coup d’etat. “It would be a terrible precedent if we start moving backwards into the era in which we are seeing military coups as a means of political transition rather than democratic elections,” Obama said.

Today, though it has backed away from calling the impeachment a coup, the Obama administration still views the crisis through an inverted moral compass. Worse still, Washington now appears to be doing Zelaya’s bidding in Honduras.

Last week, after meeting with Zelaya in Washington, Secretary of State Clinton announced that all U.S. aid to the Honduran government would be permanently cut off as a result of its refusal to reinstall Manuel Zelaya as president. And as if crippling sanctions against one of the poorest countries in the Western Hemisphere isn’t enough, the State Department announced last week that given present circumstances, the United States would not recognize the results of the November free elections in Honduras!

This goes beyond madness, as Ralph Peters wrote earlier this week. We have a government in Washington that has it completely backward when it comes to American friends and foes. While punishing those who are struggling to uphold freedom, democracy and the rule of law, we are actively aiding and abetting the cause of murderous thugs who hate what America stands for and wish to destroy us.

Change has certainly come to America. What a radical turn for the worse we have taken, as we wrote back in January.

As shameful as this whole episode is for the United States, you can’t help but admire little Honduras for sticking to its constitutional guns. In response to Washington’s blatant attempt to bring down the Honduran government, interim Interior Minister Oscar Raul Matute echoed remarks John F. Kennedy made in 1961: “Whether you wish us well or not, we will pay any price, we will bear any burden, we will take on any difficulty, we will support any friend and oppose any enemy to ensure the survival and the success of liberty and democracy in our country.”

That price, with the United States now fully committed to empowering dictators like Manuel Zelaya in Latin American, will be heavy indeed.

Venezuela and Iran Continue to Boost Ties

Venezuela and Iran Continue to Boost Ties

Behrouz Mehri/AFP/Getty Images

The two petroleum economies sign more energy deals.

Iran and Venezuela signed three energy agreements on Sunday during a visit by Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez to the Islamic Republic.

This was the seventh official visit to Iran for Chávez, as Caracas and Tehran continue to strengthen their relationship.

Two of the accords stipulated that Venezuela and Iran will each invest $760 million in the other’s energy sectors. Under the first, state oil company Petroleos de Venezuela SA committed to investing $760 million in Iran’s South Pars phase 12. Under the second deal, Iran agreed to invest the same amount in Venezuela’s Dokobuki oil field.

The third deal is an Iranian attempt to mitigate the risk of new sanctions from the West.

U.S. lawmakers suspect that Iran’s nuclear program is designed to produce nuclear weapons, and are expected to vote on new sanctions targeting Iran’s refined petroleum imports. Although Iran is one of the largest oil suppliers in the world, its lack of refining capacity forces it to import 40 percent of its gasoline. Under the terms of the deal, Tehran will import 20,000 barrels of gasoline from Venezuela each day, worth $800 million, beginning in October.

This brings the total number of energy agreements between the two petroleum economies to more than 35. But there is more to the strengthening ties between Iran and Venezuela than just oil. This relationship is being constructed on a staunch anti-American footing: Both nations consider the United States an enemy. Look for relations between these two to continue to improve. As this occurs, expect Iran and Venezuela to exploit future opportunities to counter American interests, in both the Middle East and South America.

Is Germany’s 9/11 Imminent?

Is Germany’s 9/11 Imminent?


An Islamic terrorist attack transformed Spain’s political landscape in 2004. Could an attack do the same in Germany?

Analysts with the Institute of Terrorism Research and Response (itrr) recently intercepted a message circulating among al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists that said “everyone knows the next strike is very near.” The attack will “surprise everyone in its effect,” the author noted, and will be “much more shocking than that of Sept. 11, 2001” (emphasis mine throughout).

Threats like this are not rare, which means they can be too easily discarded. But this communique is relevant, and raises some worthwhile considerations. First, notice which nation the terrorists are targeting. The message said,

And the Germans, grandchildren of the Nazis, know more than everyone else that they will be the first ones to taste [the nightmare]. It is just a matter of time—that is, days or weeks—and God willing you’ll see things that you’ve never heard of before.

This message is also relevant for its timing. Germany is on the eve of national elections; the people vote on September 27. Will an al Qaeda attack occur before the German national election? Before or after, it’s easy to see how an attack would transform Germany’s national leadership.

Consider this too: Al Qaeda has a successful track record of transforming a country’s political landscape by conducting an attack, or series of attacks, on the eve of a national election. Remember Spanish national elections in March 2004?

In the weeks prior to elections on March 14, 2004, polls showed Spain’s incumbent prime minister, José Aznar, with a solid lead over his opposition. Even a week before election day, Aznar’s reelection appeared certain, despite the fact that the majority of Spaniards opposed his government’s support of and participation in the U.S.-led Iraq war. But Mr. Aznar’s political destiny changed the morning of March 11, when a string of exploding bombs wreaked carnage and chaos on the Madrid rail system, killing 191 and injuring 1,800 people.

Al Qaeda’s message to Spanish voters was crystal clear: “Perfectly timed to be absorbed into the Spanish electorate’s psyche,” Stratfor observed, the train bombings were “designed to demonstrate the price that Spain would be forced to pay for its Iraq policy” (March 18, 2004). The message resonated, quickly. “What was a less-than-decisive issue [the Iraq war] for voters March 10 became the defining issue by March 12.” Two days later, the pro-war José Aznar was ousted, and José Luis Zapatero, the anti-Iraq war leader of the Socialist Party, was elected. Within months, Spanish troops were exiting Iraq.

In a matter of hours, and with a handful of bombs, al Qaeda successfully transformed Spain’s political landscape—and drove Spanish forces from Iraq!

Will they attempt to do the same in Germany?

One of al Qaeda’s top priorities is to drive foreign troops from Afghanistan, which has been its central base of operations for more than 25 years. With more than 4,000 troops stationed in Afghanistan, the third largest contingent behind America and Britain, Germany is one of al Qaeda’s primary targets. At home, Germany’s political landscape is not dissimilar to Spain’s in the weeks prior to March 11, 2004. While the war is unpopular among the German electorate, it has not been a determining factor in the election campaign.

Not until this week did it even appear that Ms. Merkel’s support of the war efforts might hurt her popularity and seemingly likely reelection on September 27. Last Friday, the German electorate was reminded of its government’s participation in the U.S.-led war when a wayward air assault on terrorists, ordered by German military commanders, apparently killed dozens of civilians. Since then the war has emerged as a topic of national debate, with Ms. Merkel’s defense of Germany’s involvement in Afghanistan becoming as much a sore point among Germans, two thirds of whom don’t believe Germany ought to be there in the first place, as last Friday’s botched attack.

With anti-war sentiments mounting and a national election looming, it’s not difficult to see why al Qaeda might consider the next few weeks an opportune time to strike Germany.

It’s a possibility not lost on German officials. “We all have Madrid at the back of our minds,” stated August Hanning, the assistant to German Interior Minister Wolfgang Schäuble. Last month, Schäuble himself warned that “Germany is in the crosshairs of international terrorism.” “German security authorities, especially the Interior Ministry,” noted Spiegel Online, “have rarely spoken as often and openly about a supposedly imminent attack as they have this summer.” Campaigning on domestic security might not win an election during a global financial crisis, continued Spiegel, but a “bomb exploding in Germany could quickly spell an election loss.”

In his latest Key of David television program, recorded yesterday and scheduled to air in two weeks, Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry discussed the possibility of an Islamic terrorist attack in Germany, and the transformation it would cause in German politics. While intelligence like this intercepted message certainly suggests an attack is possible, Mr. Flurry explained, Bible prophecy and historical fact reveal emphatically that Germany is about to undergo a political transformation—which could easily be set off by an attack on Germany by Islamic terrorists.

“I believe this could very easily happen, and could lead to the biggest change in world events in this end time,” stated Mr. Flurry.

Should Germany be attacked by al Qaeda or one of its radical Islamic friends, explained Mr. Flurry, its response would probably be the exact opposite of Spain’s in 2004. An attack on German soil would almost certainly bring about the demise of Angela Merkel’s chancellorship, and, depending on the parties in power and the strength of the coalition, likely destabilize the German government, no matter if it occurred before or after this month’s elections. Whatever the details, an attack would not usher in a weak, introverted, anti-war administration in Berlin.

It would usher in the exact opposite!

Bible prophecy reveals that in the end time, the time immediately before Jesus Christ’s return, a man of fierce countenance and powerful, cruel leadership will assume control of a newly resurrected, German-led Holy Roman Empire. Daniel 8 identifies this man as a modern-day Antiochus Epiphanes, the Greek king in the second-century B.C. who, after obtaining his kingdom by flattery and deceit, set about afflicting and torturing the Jews around Jerusalem. (To study this prophecy in detail, read Daniel Unlocks Revelation).

A terrorist explosion on German soil could thrust this terrifying man onto the scene in an instant!

Right now Germany is a strong nation without a strong leader. The European Union is an empire without an emperor. While some Germans and Europeans see this reality, many don’t. A devastating terrorist attack on German soil by Islamic terrorists would quickly expose this void, and immediately intensify the craving in Germany, and Europe, for strong leadership. If you haven’t already, read “Is Germany’s Charlemagne About to Appear?

And remember, watch Germany—closely!

The most epic picture ever taken—in 3-D

The image is Hubble Ultra Deep Field. It was taken over a few months at the end of 2003, focusing the Hubble Space Telescope’s powerful lens on a pinprick of space—one 12-millionth of the sky. It revealed a cross-section of galaxies ranging in age from a few hundred million years old to over 13 billion light years. Virtually every dot in this image is a galaxy—a collection of millions to hundreds of billions of stars. There are a stunning 10,000 of them!

Based on the redshift values of each galaxy, nasa calculated their distances and created a 3-D rendering of the image, contained within the following video.

Next month the Trumpet will release a new booklet, Our Awesome Universe Potential, explaining the significance of the cosmos. Watch for it.

China Worried About U.S. Printing Money

China Worried About U.S. Printing Money

Getty Images

China is worried about America’s decision to resort to “credit easing”—a modern way of printing money—to try to get out of financial troubles. This may force China to find alternatives to the dollar, according to one official.

Cheng Siwei, former vice-chairman of the Standing Committee and China’s green energy chief, said Beijing hoped the Americans would change their monetary policy “as soon as they have positive growth again.” “If they keep printing money to buy bonds it will lead to inflation, and after a year or two the dollar will fall hard. Most of our foreign reserves are in U.S. bonds and this is very difficult to change, so we will diversify incremental reserves into euros, yen and other currencies,” he said.

Telegraph columnist Ambrose Evans-Pritchard described Cheng as “a sort of economic ambassador for China around the world.”

Cheng also stated that the Chinese are looking at gold as an alternative to the dollar. “Gold is definitely an alternative, but when we buy, the price goes up. We have to do it carefully so as not stimulate the market,” he said.

France, Russia and India have also called for an end of the dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency. On Monday the United Nations conference on Trade and Development joined the chorus. “An economy whose currency is used as a reserve currency is not under the same obligation as others to make the necessary macroeconomic or exchange-rate adjustments for avoiding continuing current account deficits,” said the report. “Thus, the dominance of the dollar as the main means of international payments also played an important role in the build-up of the global imbalances in the run-up to the financial crisis.”

As more and more countries begin to look for an alternative for the dollar, watch for that alternative to emerge. For more information on what this alternative will look like, see our article “World Prepares to Dump the Dollar.”